Ok this is a nit pick. The Afghan & Iraq Wars have been approved by Congress. Afghan War: S.J. Res. 23 September 14, 2001
The Iraq War: H.J. Res. 114, October 16, 2002.

As military engagements approved by Congress you could argue that prisoners captured in these engagements are prisoners of war.

Do not forget Vietnam fell into the same category. A military engagement approved by Congress not a full blown declaration of war. And there were a number of POWs on both sides in this conflict.

Also look at Korea. There was no declaration of war or approval of congress for a military engagement. Truman said he didn't need it because of the UN resolution. Yet we held any number of Chinese and North Korean soldiers as POWs.

Look I am not defending our indefinite hold of prisoners. My point is I don't think your argument will hold up as the reason we cannot do it.

As usual, you confuse cherry picking some quotes out of stuff you found on the Internet but haven't taken the time to truly digest or understand with knowing what you're talking about. And hey, why not? Its a pandemic affliction among people who can't remember a time before the Internet.

Reid v. Covert dealt with whether U.S. citizens are entitled to Constitutional protections from the U.S. government when they are, for some reason, subject to U.S. jurisdiction while abroad. It does not deal with the rights of foreign nationals captured on foreign soil by U.S. military personnel while engaged in military operations against hostile forces. The Constitutional rights of foreign nationals engaged in hostile military operations--even when captured on U.S. soil--are severely circumscribed. Go read Ex Parte Quirin, 317 U.S. 1 (1942).

And, btw, if your argument that these guys are not subject to the law of war unless Congress declares war were true, that would mean that we wouldn't be bound by the requirments of the Geneva Conventions with regard to them, notwithstanding the specific provisions of those conventions to prevent states from evading treaty obligations by precisely the artifice of not fomrally declaring war.

Whether we should grant the supposely untriable detainees more rights than they are entitled to under the Constitution is a legitimate and important discussion. Vociferously arguing that they have the same rights as U.S. citizens when they don't just leads one to believe that trying to have a reasoned discussion with you is futile. Though your constant resort to attacking the motives of people who dare to disagree with you rather than addressing their arguments would be kind of a dead giveaway on that point however.

Obamabot? Semi-literate clown?

You took a valid argument against a position I presented in my blog, which was proffered by TPM member Ecclesiastes, rewrapped it up as if it were a product of your own without offering Ecclesiastes any credit, adding only invective and one Wikipedia link to it. Who is the semi-literate here? Additionally, have you no shame, plagiariser?

Exactly who is trying to justify infinite detention citing the Geneva Conventions? I would really like to see if someone is stupid enough to do that or if this is just another one of your imaginary foes.

By the by, not that you actually offered any kind of proof for your silly assertion about the constitution "superseding" treaties (which is an incorrect way to think about the situation), the general idea with treaties -- dealing with rights in particular -- is that they define some minimum level which participating nations are free to improve on.